Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Faryn Balyncd
Faryn Balyncd's Journal
Faryn Balyncd's Journal
March 26, 2015
And it is NOT that he will be nominated. (We all know he won't. And the GOP knows that would doom them.)
What we should fear is that Cruz will succeed in his role in framing the melodrama, and that our defunct media will be given an excuse to peddle the eventual Republican nominee as "moderate conservative" and/or "sane".
Ted's role is to be so crazy that CNN, CBS, ABC, MSN, NPR will be enabled in their continued laundering of RW memes to independents, and to frame the discourse so that an eventual nominee to the right of anyone ever nominated, perhaps a Scott Walker, can be falsely peddled as a "compromise".
And, given the complicity of our "media", that is truly something to fear, and to defeat.
(Which we will.)
We can see the real enemy, and it is certainly NOT Ted Cruz, professional rodeo clown, decoy.
:
There is only one thing to fear regarding Ted Cruz.
And it is NOT that he will be nominated. (We all know he won't. And the GOP knows that would doom them.)
What we should fear is that Cruz will succeed in his role in framing the melodrama, and that our defunct media will be given an excuse to peddle the eventual Republican nominee as "moderate conservative" and/or "sane".
Ted's role is to be so crazy that CNN, CBS, ABC, MSN, NPR will be enabled in their continued laundering of RW memes to independents, and to frame the discourse so that an eventual nominee to the right of anyone ever nominated, perhaps a Scott Walker, can be falsely peddled as a "compromise".
And, given the complicity of our "media", that is truly something to fear, and to defeat.
(Which we will.)
We can see the real enemy, and it is certainly NOT Ted Cruz, professional rodeo clown, decoy.
:
March 25, 2015
AUSTIN -- State lawmakers took up legislation Tuesday to give patients more power to defend themselves against surprise medical bills.
The proposal, Senate Bill 481, targets "balance billing," an increasingly common phenomenon that occurs when a patient is treated at a facility in the network of his health insurance plan, but by at least one individual doctor who is not part of the network.
Because patients are responsible for paying for out-of-network costs, getting a balance bill can be very expensive. And a recent report found that such bills are especially common in Texas emergency rooms, with half of charges at ERs in in-network hospitals being billed as out of network.
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Lawmakers-consider-boosting-protections-against-6155828.php
(Unfortunately, the link at http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/health/article/Surprise-hospital-bills-are-common-in-Texas-5759688.php is behind a subscription wall.)
And those out of network bills are not only paid 100% by the patient, but the amount billed is often a fantasy "regular price" which is ofter 250 -600 percent higher than any insurance company ever pays.
When the culture of predatory capitalism in medicine gets so bad that even Republicans introduce bills to curb it, it's clear that this is an issue that we need to address.
50% of charges at Texas ERs in IN-NETWORK hospitals being billed as out of network.
AUSTIN -- State lawmakers took up legislation Tuesday to give patients more power to defend themselves against surprise medical bills.
The proposal, Senate Bill 481, targets "balance billing," an increasingly common phenomenon that occurs when a patient is treated at a facility in the network of his health insurance plan, but by at least one individual doctor who is not part of the network.
Because patients are responsible for paying for out-of-network costs, getting a balance bill can be very expensive. And a recent report found that such bills are especially common in Texas emergency rooms, with half of charges at ERs in in-network hospitals being billed as out of network.
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Lawmakers-consider-boosting-protections-against-6155828.php
(Unfortunately, the link at http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/health/article/Surprise-hospital-bills-are-common-in-Texas-5759688.php is behind a subscription wall.)
And those out of network bills are not only paid 100% by the patient, but the amount billed is often a fantasy "regular price" which is ofter 250 -600 percent higher than any insurance company ever pays.
When the culture of predatory capitalism in medicine gets so bad that even Republicans introduce bills to curb it, it's clear that this is an issue that we need to address.
March 21, 2015
(In today's email from Democracy for America) :
It's one of the biggest progressive mobilizations in years -- all to stop a bad trade deal that could destroy more American jobs.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) badly hurt the American middle class, sending hundreds of thousands of our jobs overseas and eroding wages for others -- while benefitting huge, multinational corporations.
Now Congress is considering approval of a new trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that many are calling "NAFTA on steroids." Worse, Congress is being asked by the White House to rubber stamp the deal. The president wants Fast Track authority that would limit Congress's ability to amend or even review the proposed deal.
Progressive leaders are coming together to stop Fast Track and the TPP. We've successfully delayed a Fast Track bill for over a month. But we need your support to stop it for good.
Join members of Democracy for America, Progressives United, Daily Kos, Campaign for America's Future, and Representatives Keith Ellison, Raúl Grijalva, and Mark Pocan -- sign the petition to stop Fast Track for the TPP today!
Senator Elizabeth Warren has led the charge against the Fast Track provision of the TPP. She's zeroed in on a clause in the deal that would allow companies to go to an independent panel, made up of corporate lobbyists, to overturn American laws and regulations.
We only learned about that provision because of leaks from the TPP negotiations. Right now, the complete text of the deal is secret. If Congress gives Fast Track authority to the White House, Congress won't see the full text until shortly before they vote on the TPP -- and under Fast Track rules, they won't be able to amend the deal.
That's not good for democracy, and it's not good for jobs. Progressives are coming together to stop this deal and stop Fast Track authority. To keep up the momentum, we need your signature ASAP.
Sign our coalition's petition to stop Fast Track for the TPP today!
Thank you for helping stop this awful trade deal.
- Robert
Robert Cruickshank, Senior Campaign Manager
Democracy for America
Signed!
Democracy for America: "Stop the TPP" petition:
(In today's email from Democracy for America) :
It's one of the biggest progressive mobilizations in years -- all to stop a bad trade deal that could destroy more American jobs.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) badly hurt the American middle class, sending hundreds of thousands of our jobs overseas and eroding wages for others -- while benefitting huge, multinational corporations.
Now Congress is considering approval of a new trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that many are calling "NAFTA on steroids." Worse, Congress is being asked by the White House to rubber stamp the deal. The president wants Fast Track authority that would limit Congress's ability to amend or even review the proposed deal.
Progressive leaders are coming together to stop Fast Track and the TPP. We've successfully delayed a Fast Track bill for over a month. But we need your support to stop it for good.
Join members of Democracy for America, Progressives United, Daily Kos, Campaign for America's Future, and Representatives Keith Ellison, Raúl Grijalva, and Mark Pocan -- sign the petition to stop Fast Track for the TPP today!
Senator Elizabeth Warren has led the charge against the Fast Track provision of the TPP. She's zeroed in on a clause in the deal that would allow companies to go to an independent panel, made up of corporate lobbyists, to overturn American laws and regulations.
We only learned about that provision because of leaks from the TPP negotiations. Right now, the complete text of the deal is secret. If Congress gives Fast Track authority to the White House, Congress won't see the full text until shortly before they vote on the TPP -- and under Fast Track rules, they won't be able to amend the deal.
That's not good for democracy, and it's not good for jobs. Progressives are coming together to stop this deal and stop Fast Track authority. To keep up the momentum, we need your signature ASAP.
Sign our coalition's petition to stop Fast Track for the TPP today!
Thank you for helping stop this awful trade deal.
- Robert
Robert Cruickshank, Senior Campaign Manager
Democracy for America
Signed!
March 21, 2015
Lawmakers Say TPP Meetings Classified To Keep Americans in the Dark
“Making it classified further ensures that, even if we accidentally learn something, we cannot share it. What is working so hard to hide? What is the specific legal basis for all this senseless secrecy?” Doggett said to The Hill.
“Open trade should begin with open access,” Doggett said. “Members expected to vote on trade deals should be able to read the unredacted negotiating text.” . . . . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016117769
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/17/lawmakers-say-tpp-meetings-classified-keep-americans-dark
Perhaps he can go back to Citigroup, or managing his sleazebag Cayman investments:
...After the end of the Clinton administration in 2001, Froman followed Robert Rubin from the Treasury Department to Citigroup. He was President and Chief Executive Officer of CitiInsurance and head of Emerging Markets Strategy at Citigroup, managing infrastructure and sustainable development investments. He received more than $7.4 million from January 2008 to 2009 alone....
On May 2, 2013, Froman was nominated to serve as U.S. Trade Representative. Financial documents provided to the Senate Finance Committee showed he had nearly $500,000 in an offshore fund at Ugland House on the Cayman Islands, which Obama had once described as “the biggest tax scam in the world.”. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Froman
Actually, what did we expect from a "trade" representative that Warren voted against because he refused to commit to even the pathetic transparency standards of the Bush 43 administration?
....His nomination was opposed by only four senators – chiefly Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who faulted Froman for refusing to commit to even the paltry standard for transparency in trade talks set by the George W. Bush administration. Warren was right to be concerned. In backroom negotiations, Froman has worked to undermine new European Union fuel standards intended to lower the continent's carbon emissions. The European standards would work, in part, by grading the carbon toxicity of various crude oils. They logically propose placing polluting tar-sands oil in a carbon class all by itself; on its path from a pit mine to the filling station, a gallon of tar-sands gas is responsible for 81 percent more climate pollution than the average gallon of regular. But instead of respecting the EU's commitment to slow global warming, Froman has worked to force North America's dirtiest petrol into the tanks of Europe's Volkswagens, Peugeots and lorries.
His hardball tactics were revealed in obscure written congressional testimony last year. In a question to Froman, Rep. Kevin Brady, an oil-friendly Texas Republican, slammed the European proposal as a "discriminatory, environmentally unjustified" trade barrier. Froman responded, "I share your concerns," and described his work to "press the Commission to take the views of?.?.?.?U.S. refiners under consideration." He explained how he had turned the standards into a point of contention in negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – a major free-trade pact being hammered out between the U.S. and the EU. Last October, Froman's team even went before the World Trade Organization to demand that all globally traded petroleum products be treated "without discrimination."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-u-s-exports-global-warming-20140203?page=2
Froman should be fired (yesterday):
Lawmakers Say TPP Meetings Classified To Keep Americans in the Dark
“Making it classified further ensures that, even if we accidentally learn something, we cannot share it. What is working so hard to hide? What is the specific legal basis for all this senseless secrecy?” Doggett said to The Hill.
“Open trade should begin with open access,” Doggett said. “Members expected to vote on trade deals should be able to read the unredacted negotiating text.” . . . . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016117769
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/17/lawmakers-say-tpp-meetings-classified-keep-americans-dark
Perhaps he can go back to Citigroup, or managing his sleazebag Cayman investments:
...After the end of the Clinton administration in 2001, Froman followed Robert Rubin from the Treasury Department to Citigroup. He was President and Chief Executive Officer of CitiInsurance and head of Emerging Markets Strategy at Citigroup, managing infrastructure and sustainable development investments. He received more than $7.4 million from January 2008 to 2009 alone....
On May 2, 2013, Froman was nominated to serve as U.S. Trade Representative. Financial documents provided to the Senate Finance Committee showed he had nearly $500,000 in an offshore fund at Ugland House on the Cayman Islands, which Obama had once described as “the biggest tax scam in the world.”. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Froman
Actually, what did we expect from a "trade" representative that Warren voted against because he refused to commit to even the pathetic transparency standards of the Bush 43 administration?
....His nomination was opposed by only four senators – chiefly Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who faulted Froman for refusing to commit to even the paltry standard for transparency in trade talks set by the George W. Bush administration. Warren was right to be concerned. In backroom negotiations, Froman has worked to undermine new European Union fuel standards intended to lower the continent's carbon emissions. The European standards would work, in part, by grading the carbon toxicity of various crude oils. They logically propose placing polluting tar-sands oil in a carbon class all by itself; on its path from a pit mine to the filling station, a gallon of tar-sands gas is responsible for 81 percent more climate pollution than the average gallon of regular. But instead of respecting the EU's commitment to slow global warming, Froman has worked to force North America's dirtiest petrol into the tanks of Europe's Volkswagens, Peugeots and lorries.
His hardball tactics were revealed in obscure written congressional testimony last year. In a question to Froman, Rep. Kevin Brady, an oil-friendly Texas Republican, slammed the European proposal as a "discriminatory, environmentally unjustified" trade barrier. Froman responded, "I share your concerns," and described his work to "press the Commission to take the views of?.?.?.?U.S. refiners under consideration." He explained how he had turned the standards into a point of contention in negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – a major free-trade pact being hammered out between the U.S. and the EU. Last October, Froman's team even went before the World Trade Organization to demand that all globally traded petroleum products be treated "without discrimination."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-u-s-exports-global-warming-20140203?page=2
March 17, 2015
...Future recipients of Medicare would be offered voucherlike “premium support” to pay for private insurance rather than government-provided health care.
Spending on Medicaid would be cut substantially over 10 years, with the money turned into block grants to state governments, which in turn would have much more flexibility in deciding how it is allocated.
The budget “repeals all of Obamacare,” Representative Diane Black, Republican of Tennessee, said the same day the Obama administration announced that the law had provided coverage to 16.4 million previously uninsured people.To placate advocates of the military who say strict budget caps are hurting national defense, the House budget adds “emergency” war spending through the “overseas contingency operations” account, which does not count against the spending limits. . . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/us/politics/house-republican-budget-overhauls-medicare-and-repeals-the-health-law.html?emc=edit_tnt_20150316&nlid=58462464&tntemail0=y&_r=1
Well, do we have the issue to throw these bums out?
NYT: House GOP budget proposes to voucherize Medicare, block grant Medicaid, repeal ACA:
...Future recipients of Medicare would be offered voucherlike “premium support” to pay for private insurance rather than government-provided health care.
Spending on Medicaid would be cut substantially over 10 years, with the money turned into block grants to state governments, which in turn would have much more flexibility in deciding how it is allocated.
The budget “repeals all of Obamacare,” Representative Diane Black, Republican of Tennessee, said the same day the Obama administration announced that the law had provided coverage to 16.4 million previously uninsured people.To placate advocates of the military who say strict budget caps are hurting national defense, the House budget adds “emergency” war spending through the “overseas contingency operations” account, which does not count against the spending limits. . . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/us/politics/house-republican-budget-overhauls-medicare-and-repeals-the-health-law.html?emc=edit_tnt_20150316&nlid=58462464&tntemail0=y&_r=1
Well, do we have the issue to throw these bums out?
March 17, 2015
The United States is in the final stages of secret, closed-door negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive trade agreement with 11 other countries.
Who will benefit from it? One provision hidden in the fine print – “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” – may sound harmless, but don’t let that fool you: ISDS could let foreign companies challenge US laws without ever stepping in an American court.
That would undermine US sovereignty and tilt the playing field even further in favor of multinational corporations.
Sign my petition and spread the word: ISDS is a bad deal for America.
Here’s how ISDS would work: Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge that regulation in a US court.
But with ISDS, the company could skip the US courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the multinational company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in US courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions – and even billions – of dollars in damages.
If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next. Really.
And if the tilt toward giant corporations wasn’t clear enough, consider who would get to use this special court: only international investors, which are, by and large, giant corporations. So if a Vietnamese company with US operations wanted to challenge our refusal to import a dangerous chemical, it could use ISDS. But if an American labor union or human rights group believed Vietnam was allowing Vietnamese companies to pay slave wages in violation of trade commitments, the American labor group would have to make its case in the Vietnamese courts – and if an environmental group thought the Vietnamese company was dumping waste in their rivers in violation of the new trade agreement, they would have to go to a Vietnamese court as well. In other words, the great deal for corporations is only for corporations – everyone else is left out.
Giving foreign corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside of our legal system would be a bad deal for America. Sign my petition to say no to ISDS.
Opposing ISDS isn’t a partisan issue – even your Tea Party relatives should be worried about this dangerous provision:
Conservatives who believe in US sovereignty should be outraged that ISDS would shift power from American courts, whose authority is derived from our Constitution, to unaccountable international tribunals.
Libertarians should be offended that ISDS effectively would offer a free taxpayer subsidy to countries with weak legal systems.
And progressives should oppose ISDS because it would allow big multinational corporations to weaken labor and environmental rules.
If a final TPP agreement includes Investor-State Dispute Settlement, the only winners will be multinational corporations. Join me in saying No to ISDS.
Thank you for being a part of this,
Elizabeth
http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/s/isds?source=20150316emb
(I signed it.)
Warren: "ISDS is a bad deal for America" (TPP Petition)
(In today's Email, from Elizabeth Warren):The United States is in the final stages of secret, closed-door negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive trade agreement with 11 other countries.
Who will benefit from it? One provision hidden in the fine print – “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” – may sound harmless, but don’t let that fool you: ISDS could let foreign companies challenge US laws without ever stepping in an American court.
That would undermine US sovereignty and tilt the playing field even further in favor of multinational corporations.
Sign my petition and spread the word: ISDS is a bad deal for America.
Here’s how ISDS would work: Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge that regulation in a US court.
But with ISDS, the company could skip the US courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the multinational company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in US courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions – and even billions – of dollars in damages.
If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next. Really.
And if the tilt toward giant corporations wasn’t clear enough, consider who would get to use this special court: only international investors, which are, by and large, giant corporations. So if a Vietnamese company with US operations wanted to challenge our refusal to import a dangerous chemical, it could use ISDS. But if an American labor union or human rights group believed Vietnam was allowing Vietnamese companies to pay slave wages in violation of trade commitments, the American labor group would have to make its case in the Vietnamese courts – and if an environmental group thought the Vietnamese company was dumping waste in their rivers in violation of the new trade agreement, they would have to go to a Vietnamese court as well. In other words, the great deal for corporations is only for corporations – everyone else is left out.
Giving foreign corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside of our legal system would be a bad deal for America. Sign my petition to say no to ISDS.
Opposing ISDS isn’t a partisan issue – even your Tea Party relatives should be worried about this dangerous provision:
Conservatives who believe in US sovereignty should be outraged that ISDS would shift power from American courts, whose authority is derived from our Constitution, to unaccountable international tribunals.
Libertarians should be offended that ISDS effectively would offer a free taxpayer subsidy to countries with weak legal systems.
And progressives should oppose ISDS because it would allow big multinational corporations to weaken labor and environmental rules.
If a final TPP agreement includes Investor-State Dispute Settlement, the only winners will be multinational corporations. Join me in saying No to ISDS.
Thank you for being a part of this,
Elizabeth
http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/s/isds?source=20150316emb
(I signed it.)
March 12, 2015
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-charges-against-47-us-senators-violation-logan-act-attempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9
Petition now over 238,000
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-charges-against-47-us-senators-violation-logan-act-attempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9
March 10, 2015
...and violation of the Logan Act, by 47 of their colleagues (87% of the GOP Senate caucus):
Lamar Alexander
Dan Coats, Senate Intelligence Committee
Thad Cochran
Susan Collins
Bob Corker, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Jeff Flake
Lisa Murkowski
In an age when their party's habitual hypocrisy, with regard to the Constitution and the rule of law, knows no limits, at least some of the 7 must wonder what happened to the party they joined long ago.
Coats, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, presents an interesting study on this issue, in that in November he wrote a letter to (then) Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Robert Menendez and Ranking Member Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) urging them to use existing authority to request a report from the Secretary of State on the verifiability of the administration’s recent nuclear agreement with Iran, iindicating that he favored Congressional oversight under existing law.
It would appear that both Coats and Corker, the current GOP Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, (and probably the other 5 non-signers), while favoring traditional legal Congressional involvement, made a decision not to participate with 87% of their GOP caucus in their deliberate and unprecedented attempt to subvert sensitive vital negotiations, and in clearly violating the Logan Act, and in misstating the legal realities in their subversive letter.
There hasn't been much room in the Republican caucus for traditional Republicans, or anyone with an ounce of judgement or integrity for years, and its clearly getting smaller.
The 7 GOP Senators who chose not to participate in unprecedented subversion of foreign negotiations,
...and violation of the Logan Act, by 47 of their colleagues (87% of the GOP Senate caucus):
Lamar Alexander
Dan Coats, Senate Intelligence Committee
Thad Cochran
Susan Collins
Bob Corker, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Jeff Flake
Lisa Murkowski
In an age when their party's habitual hypocrisy, with regard to the Constitution and the rule of law, knows no limits, at least some of the 7 must wonder what happened to the party they joined long ago.
Coats, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, presents an interesting study on this issue, in that in November he wrote a letter to (then) Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Robert Menendez and Ranking Member Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) urging them to use existing authority to request a report from the Secretary of State on the verifiability of the administration’s recent nuclear agreement with Iran, iindicating that he favored Congressional oversight under existing law.
It would appear that both Coats and Corker, the current GOP Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, (and probably the other 5 non-signers), while favoring traditional legal Congressional involvement, made a decision not to participate with 87% of their GOP caucus in their deliberate and unprecedented attempt to subvert sensitive vital negotiations, and in clearly violating the Logan Act, and in misstating the legal realities in their subversive letter.
There hasn't been much room in the Republican caucus for traditional Republicans, or anyone with an ounce of judgement or integrity for years, and its clearly getting smaller.
February 6, 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=243195
An important video posted by Thom Hartmann on the Video/Multimedia Forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=243195
February 6, 2015
email today from Robert Reich:
Republicans in Congress are trying to give President Obama new powers to fast track the negotiation of the worst trade deal you've never heard of.
Why would they want to do that? I'll tell you. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not just the worst trade deal you've never heard of -- it's also the biggest. With lobbyists for big business crafting the deal behind closed doors, it has been infamously called "NAFTA on steroids." And, if Congress gives the president fast track authority, that means Congress will not have the ability to amend this undemocratic deal before voting on it.
That's why I'm collaborating with my friends at Democracy for America and MoveOn to spread the word about why the TPP is such a bad idea. Check out this email that I made with MoveOn -- and then sign DFA's petition to Congress:
Will you help fight back? Share this video and sign DFA's petition to Congress urging them to reject fast track authority for the TPP! Thank you for helping stop the erosion of the middle class -- and standing up for democracy.
Robert Reich
Former Secretary of Labor
Reich's email could not be more timely given Paul Ryan's speech Thursday urging Republicans to enact Fast Track, as reported in the Wall Street Journal
Robert Reich: Republicans want to give President Obama a new power he shouldn't have
email today from Robert Reich:
Republicans in Congress are trying to give President Obama new powers to fast track the negotiation of the worst trade deal you've never heard of.
Why would they want to do that? I'll tell you. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not just the worst trade deal you've never heard of -- it's also the biggest. With lobbyists for big business crafting the deal behind closed doors, it has been infamously called "NAFTA on steroids." And, if Congress gives the president fast track authority, that means Congress will not have the ability to amend this undemocratic deal before voting on it.
That's why I'm collaborating with my friends at Democracy for America and MoveOn to spread the word about why the TPP is such a bad idea. Check out this email that I made with MoveOn -- and then sign DFA's petition to Congress:
Will you help fight back? Share this video and sign DFA's petition to Congress urging them to reject fast track authority for the TPP! Thank you for helping stop the erosion of the middle class -- and standing up for democracy.
Robert Reich
Former Secretary of Labor
Reich's email could not be more timely given Paul Ryan's speech Thursday urging Republicans to enact Fast Track, as reported in the Wall Street Journal
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Nov 23, 2005, 09:15 AMNumber of posts: 5,125
